The Problem with the Surge
Filed under: Feature, Iraq, Middle East, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on July 15, 2008 @ 7:00 pm CEST
Although I have become a supporter of the surge like I was a supporter of the Iraq War the first three - four years or so (I became a critic somewhere last year) - I think it is important to point out that the success of the surge does not mean that Iraq will be stable, independent, democratic and strong.
The mission in Iraq, if that is the aforementioned are the goals that is, could still very well prove to be a disaster.
The reason is as follows, and it’s quite simple; the US has provided more troops, and that automatically brings more security to Iraq in the short term, but what really matters is Iraq’s culture. What needed and still needs to happen in Iraq is that the people develop a culture of respect, emancipation, tolerance, equality, democracy, and secularism. These components were not part of Iraq’s culture when the US invaded, which is why it has proven to be so difficult for the US to withdraw.
I fear that the above is still not a part of Iraq’s culture. Reading the reports coming from Iraq, one does not get the impression that Iraqis have suddenly broken with tribalism and / or religious extremism. Neither does one believe that Iraqis believe that all men are created equal, let alone that men and women are equal. Their first allegiance lies with the tribe, still, not with the country, and especially not with a very Western concept of liberal democracy.
Iraq is and has always been an artificial state, in a tribal region. This has been part of these peoples’ cultures for hundreds even thousands of years. The US cannot change that culture in a mere five years, nor in ten… nor in twenty.
But this change in culture is absolutely necessary for peace and unity. As long as Iraq’s culture does not change profoundly, the US has to stay in Iraq in order to force Iraqis to get along with each other.
How long can the US keep that up and… should the US be willing to keep it up?
1 Connor
July 15, 2008 @ 7:57 pm CESTAs long as we have a sufficient number of troops, we can keep it up indefinitely. Of course, since no one wants to talk about a draft we probably will end up running short…
As to the "should", we should stay as long as necessary to see Iraq democratic and stable.
2 utsu
July 16, 2008 @ 12:46 am CEST"As to the "should", we should stay as long as necessary to see Iraq democratic and stable."No, you should stay as long as it takes for a reality-based president (or McCain) to form a good withdrawal plan that incorporates the advice of generals, foments self-construction, eliminates the presence of "contractors" with auto-contracts, keeps a check on Maliki and the latent authoritarianism of Iraqi politics that will aid power-seekers, calls out to allies to keep Iran out and generally screws America’s chances of stealing any oil."Of course, since no one wants to talk about a draft"Waaah my government doesn’t want to reinstitute what is essentially slavery in order to keep up a poorly handled war that I never demanded any accountability on! Seriously, if young men and women who have tried to stop this senseless occupation for years get drafted I wouldn’t be surprised to see fragging becoming all the rage again.Seriously. A draft for an occupation that wouldn’t have needed a draft if it wasn’t handled by partisan morons and immoral capitalists and that shouldn’t have been in the first place. Sickening. Yeah, but impeaching Bush - now THAT will tear our country apart and distract us from real problems!!!!captcha: "army" and "tossed" - that’s not a bad description of what US soldiers have been subjected to.
3 utsu
July 16, 2008 @ 12:49 am CESTOk, so Safari can’t handle comment-posting either. Well, sorry for the unpleasant form of the post (if the content upsets, know that I was holding my heartfelt views back somewhat).
4 Michael Merritt
July 16, 2008 @ 1:43 am CESTAre you not the same person who keeps telling people off for questioning/trying to dictate Turkey’s culture?
I agree that a national unity cannot be found unless they do start viewing themselves as Iraqis first, tribes next, or unless it is forced (ala Saddam).
Yet, we can’t be responsible for making that change happen. It’s not our job, and every other culture change we’ve tried so far has been met with resistance. It has to happen naturally, or not at all.
5 kreiz
July 16, 2008 @ 2:34 am CESTGreat, great first paragraph lead, Michael. You’re absolutely right- the Surge has been successful only in establishing some stability. We’re light years from GW Bush’s announced goal of "a stable, democratic Iraq that is our ally in the WOT". After 5.5 years, we’ve scrambled to establish a stable Iraq. In my mind, it’s a coinflip as to whether Iraq, over time, will be aligned with Iran or the US.
Your argument as to Iraqi culture is most persuasive. America’s modern, quick changing culture can seemingly change over night. In contrast, Iraq’s tribal/religious culture seems highly resistant to modernity. We were naive to think otherwise.
6 Jonathan Wilson
July 16, 2008 @ 6:14 am CESTDo you think our generals are not aware of these problems? Of course they are. The reason they want to keep up the surge of troops is not because they want short term success but because they want Iraq in a stable enough position to defend its country on its own. This is not an easy task. Some countries have battled terrorism for decades, you cannot expect pure 100% surrender from fundamentalists.
The problem of the Iraq War is much like the problem of security of a website. No matter how powerful you create your software to be, there’s always a way for some hacker to take over. Security software engineers do not attempt to create a hack-free world, they attempt to create a hard-to-hack world. As a result hacking has decreased over the years; now only the pros can do any serious damage. It’s the same with Iraq, you should not expect a full-fledged "American" democracy in Iraq, but making terrorism there difficult can only make the world safer.
It’s a battle between the will of the West versus the will of fundamentalists. After decades of fighting the fundamentalists, though they may still believe that victory is possible, they will not find recruits that believe in them. You withdraw from Iraq and you will have given them the morale uplift that they really needed.
7 Jonathan Wilson
July 16, 2008 @ 6:18 am CESTAs far as Iraq’s culture. Sure you cannot expect a radical change, American society developed in a long time and has been blessed with riches. While the Iraqi people have witnessed tribal warfare for centuries and religious oppression for a long time.
Here’s how you solve that. America needs to increase funding and funnel money into Iraq and develop standards for its educational system. Bring the economy up to speed and get the Iraqi people to produce something other than oil. Eventually, modernity will be achieved and westernization will cease to be rejected. In nations where the economy and educational system suffers, fundamentalists flourish and then they use censorship and their religious education to keep themselves alive.
8 Selin
July 16, 2008 @ 1:19 pm CEST"Are you not the same person who keeps telling people off for questioning/trying to dictate Turkey’s culture?"
Wow….. You THINK that Turkey’s culture is similar to that of Iraq??? The fact that they are geographically close like Texas and Arizona or they both happen to be Muslim countries doesn’t mean that they have the same culture of even anything close.
For starters,
1) Turks don’t start killing each other given the lack of a dictator.
2) Turks have ruled the entire land of the Ottoman Empire AND made sure that others (such as Shiites and Sunnis in today’s Iraq) did NOT get on each other’s throats whenever a power vacuum presented itself. They did this for 500 years or so.
3) …..
4) …..
5) …..
"Yet, we can’t be responsible for making that change happen. It’s not our job, and every other culture change we’ve tried so far has been met with resistance."
Actually, when America decided to invade Iraq in 2003, rightfully or not, they made it THEIR business to make sure that would happen. But maybe John Steward will disagree. How sad
If America withdraws now, it will be no different than Britain 100 years back who withdrew from places the moment the colonized place became an unprofitable enterprise. You mess with the local dynamics, screw the previously existing culture and balance of power, suck as much of the riches and resources as you can and then get out the moment the place proves to be unresourceful. In fact, this practice of British Empire’s not "giving back" to the lands it had conquered (unlike the Ottoman Empire) explains why most of its past non-Christian and non-white colonies happen to be some of the poorest countries of the world today. Iraq was also under British rule after the Ottomans, by the way. The "imperial" power has now shifted to the U.S., of course.
I believe it IS America’s business and responsibility. Whether America wants to shirk that responsibility and pretend that after five years of war, it’s not really their business because they are no longer "amused" by their war the way they were in 2003 (please remember Bush’s sky-high approval ratings AND the fact that the public approved of the war tremendously back then AND it looked good on TV like a brand new toy), that’s the voters’ call.
As Utsu says so beautifully, if the content upsets or offends anyone, I’m really trying to hold back my heartfelt thoughts the best I can :)))
9 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
July 16, 2008 @ 1:38 pm CESTMichael; I think you misunderstood me. I’m not telling them to force them, I’m saying IF they want to succeed they HAVE to force them. I’m not casting judgment, just saying what you can do in this situation.
Selin; that’s also very true. Turks are Turks, Arabs are Arabs for starters. If people think the two cultures are similar I’ve got some books they should read.
10 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
July 16, 2008 @ 1:39 pm CESTMy excuse was that I was 18, or 19 years old. What’s the excuse of so-called ’specialists’?
11 utsu
July 16, 2008 @ 2:38 pm CEST"It’s a battle between the will of the West"
Keep me out of this, thanks. I am ashamed that the pathetic occupation was prevented as such an exercise.
"America needs to increase funding and funnel money into Iraq and develop standards for its educational system. Bring the economy up to speed and get the Iraqi people to produce something other than oil."
You think that’s a priority for the non-military, non-politician guys that take part in overseeing and dictating things in Iraq? Whoah-oh. If you want the US to increase discussion of what is needed for withdrawal, you need to consider withdrawal ASAP. Obama is on that route, and he won’t jettison any Iraqi welfare if he doesn’t have to.
12 Jonathan Wilson
July 16, 2008 @ 3:10 pm CESTI’m saying that’s what the priority should be:
1) Economy
2) Education
3) Proper Laws and Proper government balance of Power.
If you establish them correctly, and make sure the Iraqi military and politicians agree with these. Then after strengthening their economy and parts of the education you can make sure that Iraq can stand on its own. You’ll also create a new generation of Iraqis who care for the country. You can truly have a successful Arab democracy, it isn’t impossible, but it is difficult and time-consuming.
13 utsu
July 16, 2008 @ 3:56 pm CEST"You’ll also create a new generation of Iraqis who care for the country. You can truly have a successful Arab democracy, it isn’t impossible, but it is difficult and time-consuming."
Well, if people like you were the designers of the occupation I would probably have defended it by now, with equal fervor. But I am not seeing commitment to such sense.
14 Chris
July 16, 2008 @ 6:34 pm CESTUtsu;
Have you ever considered journaling; it might help exorcise some of these demons.